Relics of Science History For Sale At Christie's

circletimessquare writes "Dennis Overbye at the New York Times has some ruminations on some of the historical totems of science going up for auction at Christie's next week. There is the 1543 copy of 'De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium' by Copernicus, which you can have for $900,000 to $1.2 million. If you have some cash left over, maybe you can pick up an original work by Galileo, Darwin, Descartes, Newton, Freud, Kepler, Tycho Brahe, or Malthus. And then there is the 1878 copy of the world's first phone book: 'a shock of recognition — that people were already talking on the phone a year before Einstein was born. In fact, just two years later Einstein's father went into the nascent business himself. Einstein grew up among the rudiments of phones and other electrical devices like magnets and coils, from which he drew part of the inspiration for relativity. It would not be until 1897, after people had already made fortunes exploiting electricity, that the English scientist J. J. Thomson discovered what it actually was ...'"

If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe!

[eldavojohn (898314)]

Science: Relics of Science History For Sale At Christie's

... There is the 1543 copy of 'De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium' by Copernicus, which you can have for $900,000 to $1.2 million. If you have some cash left over, maybe you can pick up an original work by Galileo, Darwin, Descartes, Newton, Freud, Kepler, Tycho Brahe, or Malthus.

Objection. Sigmund Freud may have been a psychologist but he was a far cry from a scientist. Tell me where he applied the scientific process in his work. Show me the universal laws he established.

In a lot of respects, the man was nothing more than a cokehead [wikipedia.org] with a penchant for strange sexually oriented neurosis [wikipedia.org].

He may have had a degree as a physician but I don't recall anything scientific about his work or any contributions to our understanding of the relationship between our psyche and flesh.

Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe

[Jason1729 (561790)]

At least in the modern usage, a "psychologist" doesn't have a degree in medicine at all. a "psychiatrist" does.

Other than that, I agree, Freud should not be on a list of scientists.

Then again, Tycho Brahe took Copernicus' heliocentric model and tried to revert us back to a geocentric model to appease the church, so I don't think he deserves the title either.

Give Brahe more credit.

[Jabbrwokk (1015725)]

Tycho Brahe [wikipedia.org] was a cornerstone for the development of modern astronomy:

He is credited with the most accurate astronomical observations of his time, and the data was used by his assistant Kepler to derive the laws of planetary motion. No one before Tycho had attempted to make so many redundant observations, and the mathematical tools to take advantage of them had not yet been developed. He did what others before him were unable or unwilling to do -- to catalogue the planets and stars with enough accuracy so as to determine whether the Ptolemaic or Copernican system was more valid in describing the heavens.

He meets the criteria of a scientist perfectly, regardless of his motivations. Plus, the dude lost his nose in a duel and wore a copper or gold one the rest of his life. How cool is that.

Re:Give Brahe more credit.

[doyoulikeworms (1094003)]

Nopper nose? Nat's not as nool nas yu nink.

Re:

[thermian (1267986)]

Don't forget he lived on an Island, which also housed his lab. Heck, if he turns out also to have had a white fluffy cat......

Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe

[jwkfs (1260442)]

Then again, Tycho Brahe took Copernicus' heliocentric model and tried to revert us back to a geocentric model to appease the church, so I don't think he deserves the title either.

Brahe may not have contributed much himself, but his work was extremely important. He recorded in detail the appearance and position of the planets and stars over a large period of time, which later scientists -- such as Kepler -- used his data to determine and test important concepts. Like Kepler's laws.

Value of accurate data

[Crispy Critters (226798)]

Carefully collected data has a value that outlasts all but the most fundamental and far-reaching theory. Conceptual frameworks can evolve and adapt, but they remain anchored by observations.

This is not obvious because of the way science history is taught. We learn about the geniuses and a few of the classic blunders. We don't spend much time on the work that was merely not great. Consider the development of quantum mechanics and atomic structure. There were accurate atomic spectra, correct mathematical descriptions of the line spacing, and innumerable incorrect theories about the mechanism before there was a correct description. The spectral observations eventually led to a usable theory, even though they may have been used on the way to support ideas that turned out to be bunk.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

We learn about the geniuses and a few of the classic blunders

Never get involved with a land war in Asia?

Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe

[multi-flavor-geek (586005)]

Hey now, cocaine has given us lots of great things... Lindsey Lohan, Stephen King, Robert Loius Stevenson. Do you really think that Jules Verne would have made it around the world in 80 days with out a little bump now and then? Come now people, don't knock Freud because of his cocaine habits, knock him because he made you remember that weird night when you were four when you walked in on your parents.

Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe

[gnick (1211984)]

Hey now, cocaine has given us lots of great things... Lindsey Lohan...

I'm going to have to stop you right there. I won't go so far as to start bashing cocaine, but please don't include Lindsey Lohan in your list of "great things"!

Your list is missin' someone

[aztektum (170569)]

Rick James, bitch!

freud is historically important

[circletimessquare (444983)]

freudian psychology is of course bulls***, exactly as you say

it's like other pseudoscientific, yet highly influential lines of thought that have been thoroughly debunked like lamarckism [wikipedia.org], phlogiston [wikipedia.org], phrenology [wikipedia.org], etc.

however, in the historical context, these topics are vitally important. modern psychology resembles freudian psychology like a modern ICBM resembles fireworks

however, if it weren't for fireworks, you can be sure everything that came after would have never happened

like alchemy: these guys were trying to make gold from lead. i think its kind of funny and ironic that centuries later, after refinements to chemistry, physics, etc., as a joke, some guys with some extra time at a heavy ion collider, did exactly that, convert lead into gold, as an afterthought. but they thereby reaffirmed the original goal of alchemists centuries before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics#History [wikipedia.org]

so my bet is that centuries from now, deep in the cognitive research and brain engineering advances still centuries from us, someone will come across a rather nifty bit of freudian psychology as a major truth about how our brains work. and it will be funny, and everyone will have a bit of a laugh about it

so don't belittle where you came from son. your great grandchildren will certainly laugh at your petty pursuits, but their pursuits are built on your shoulders. show some respect to freud and his silliness, it trailblazed

Re:

[thermian (1267986)]

In my opinion the only thing that can be learned from Freud is how to get a degree is a very sober subject and still attract loads of chicks.

My main problem with his work is that he took the results from rich, bored, sexually repressed wives and used it to generalise answers for the wider population.

Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe

[thermian (1267986)]

I did aa psychology module in the first year of my degree, and they said that Freuds work was pretty much disproved. Certainly that it wasn't applied by any decent psychologists.

As for trick cyclists, well I wouldn't know.

Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe

[hkmarks (1080097)]

Freud was more of a theorist than an empiricist. He formulated hypotheses based on observations and case studies. Others tested his theories, and found many of them wrong or a little off. But not all of them: the idea of an unconscious mind (which is vital to current psychological theory), and of stress causing physical symptoms, are basically sound. Of course he didn't understand exactly why -- psychology was still in its infancy.

Psychology generally doesn't work in terms of "universal laws" - it's the science of individual differences. Some discovery might be true in 30% of the population, have some bearing on about 40%, and be completely wrong for the other 30%. That doesn't mean it isn't true in 30%.

Some people like the smell of tar and some hate it. There cannot be a universal law that says "tar smells bad." And just because an observation can't be explained correctly with the current state of knowledge doesn't mean it isn't science.

I don't really like Freud either, and I think he was mostly a bad philosopher, but to say he didn't contribute anything to the modern understanding of the mind is just wrong.

Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe

[hkmarks (1080097)]

I said "explain correctly." Freud did provide explanations. They were hypothetical. He didn't test them all. Others did, and disproved them, or found better explanations for them. He was only doing part of the scientific process himself, but he was still taking part in it.

For an example, from Wikipedia:
"Freud originally posited childhood sexual abuse as a general explanation for the origin of neuroses, but he abandoned this so-called "seduction theory" as insufficiently explanatory, noting that he had found many cases in which apparent memories of childhood sexual abuse were based more on imagination than on real events."

Observation made, explanation given, explanation tested, explanation disproved. All by Freud himself.

If a scientist said "I have observed X about light, therefore I propose that light is composed of particles," whether they are being scientific does not depend if they are right or not.

Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe

[Lapsarian (1073104)]

First of all, Freud was a superb neurologist before he moved into the area of psychology. Second, you may disagree with his basic ideas, be believe me, it is basically impossible to have a discussion about Freud, about the mind, about even the validity of his ideas without using terms he invented. Giving us a solid linguistic foundation for being able to debate the validity of these ideas is a superb step towards true scientific understanding. Pre-Socratic philosophers believed that the all matter was composed of small particles of earth (and, later, fire). This is clearly nonsense, and not at all 'scientific', but without it, we would not have an idea to work against in order to move towards ideas of atomism and the makeup of matter. This is absolutely a contribution to science and the basis of scientific progress. Last: try reading Freud sometime instead of the terrible wikipedia pages on him, you will find a very modest writer who continually prefaced his essays with assertions that he was only beginning a study of the mind, one that he hoped would keep a close link to neuroscience, and the he was more than prepared to have all of his ideas overturned once more was discovered of the mysteries of the brain. He was wrong, no doubt, but so were many great scientists that paved the way for our current understanding of scientific 'truth'. thanks.

Ugh...

[Jor-Al (1298017)]

Am I the only one who finds it somewhat disgusting that rather then going into a museum these things are being sold to some private collector who will keep it locked up from the rest of the world?

Re:Ugh...

[houstonbofh (602064)]

Next time you go to a museum, look at the little plaques under the items. You know... The ones that say "On loan from the collection of..." A museum frequently does not have enough cash to buy everything it shows.

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837)]

"private collector who will keep it locked up from the rest of the world?"

Private collectors regularly donate or lease their collections to museums for display. And what's to stop a private collector from making their own exhibit to show for a fee? If you would like to help support a museum, feel free to donate, but don't tell everyone that they must give up a portion of their income to support your own cause.

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837)]

"Sure some do, but the vast majority don't."

Based on what? Almost every museum exhibit I've seen says that it was donated or leased from a private collector. Are you citing some statistics, or just making stuff up?

"Who exactly are you attacking with this statement?"

You opposed private ownership, so you must be for public ownership, no? How is this public ownership (and maintenance) achieved without public funding? You may not have realized it but you were implying increasing everyone's taxes when y

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837)]

You made the assertion that the "vast majority don't" donate/lease their items to museums. You need to back that up with some source. Saying "reality" is not the same as providing a source. Other replies to your original statement have made the same observation.

"I said they should be in a museum rather than locked up in someone's private collection where it will most likely be unavailable for others to see."

Alright. I agree with that too. So your option then (that does not violate anyone's rights) is

Re:

[gnick (1211984)]

Almost every museum exhibit I've seen says that it was donated or leased from a private collector.

And this translates into every private collector doing such a similar thing, how?

It doesn't. But, if you accept the premise that most museum exhibits are on loan from private collections, it does imply that museums would be much less impressively populated if it was not for support from private collections. I only see a few realistic options:

1) Let wealthy people buy these relics and show them to me at their discretion.
Part of the current model. Sad if things get buried or hidden away, but it's what we've got.

2) Allow museums to buy artifacts when possible using their funding acquir

Re:

[east coast (590680)]

Why? Assuming that the texts of these works are available who cares what happens to the originals or early editions? It's almost like owning a mother master of Dark Side of the Moon... is it neat and historical? Absolutly, but I can still get out my CD and listen to it all the same. Nothing of value is lost.

Re:Ugh...

[Spudtrooper (1073512)]

That cross belongs in a museum! </Indy>

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837)]

"That cross belongs in a museum!"

So do you!

Re:

[maxume (22995)]

Do your donations match your indignation?

Re:Ugh...

[kbob88 (951258)]

So I called my sister who works in museum curation and asked her about this. Here's her take on this:

• Multiple copies of most books like this exist, so even after putting some in private hands, museums still have quite a few copies (usually).
• Books going back as far as 1600 are usually really not that rare. They're rare enough to command $$ from collectors, but not so rare that museums and universities don't already have lots of copies.
• The text itself is well known, and available in many other forms, that are easier to use than a 500 year old book.
• Museums don't buy much stuff on the open market (although some). They are given stuff on loan (which is usually forever), or given it outright. Some well-funded museums do have large acquisition budgets.
• Many museums actually sell a lot of stuff like this that they have been given, or when they want to refocus their collection. Usually they have to use the proceeds to acquire new items.
• Most people don't really want to see rare, important books, plus they're hard to display effectively. There are exceptions (Book of Kells in Dublin). And science history is tough -- science museums do well with kids, and history museums do OK, but science history is a tough draw. Low attendance.
• She wanted to know how much the parent poster has contributed to his local museums recently. A bit of 'money where your mouth is.'

Her take in general: no big deal, happens all the time. They'd rather spend their precious acquisition money on extremely rare stuff of significant interest to the public or to scholars.

Re:Ugh...

[thermian (1267986)]

if you check your history you will find that almost all major museum collections are the result of the work of private collectors.

Take Tutankhamun. That entire excavation was the result of a private collectors interest in the subject.

In the past they were frequently donated, such as on the death of the (typically extremely rich) owner, but nowadays many collections are worth serious money, so that's not an option that most would consider.

My local museum has a set of 15th century Apprentice Indentures and land deeds that I donated to them 25 years ago. Had I realised what they were worth I'd have made it a loan. Semi permanently perhaps, but I shouldn't really have handed over what turned out to be many thousands of pounds worth of documentation.

I don't feel too bad though, after all, they are particularly lovely documents, I doubt I could feel comfortable with them being anywhere but in a museum.

Re:Ugh...

[Strider- (39683)]

Typically only a small fraction of a Museum's collection is ever put on display, or even ever looked at. There are a lot of researchers who spend their entire careers doing field work in the basements of museums, rather than getting dirty out in the jungles or deserts.

With objects such as these, despite how rare they are, the knowledge contained within them is already well known. There are very few things that I don't think should be privately owned... The Rosetta Stone comes to mind, as would unpublished works of any of these great minds.

Re:As we are discussing scientific matters.

[EricTheMad (603880)]

Would you care to provide facts or figures supporting your claim?

Facts and figures will only get in the way of a good argument.

as soon as i hit submit

[circletimessquare (444983)]

i knew i should have included a link to christie's site for the auction:

http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/searchresults.aspx?intSaleID=21644#intSaleID=21644 [christies.com]

some of this stuff is (relatively) cheap, if you stray away from the really big names. i'm talking names like angstrom, fahrenheit, ampere, babbage, von neumann, can be had for a couple of hundred to a couple of thousand bucks

some of you may wonder what the fuss is all about, but to me, this stuff is awesome. its the fruits of the enlightment, the intellectual explosion of mankind, solid proof of the greatness of mankind, that you can buy and hold in your hands

a lot of us here work in computer science. well, for $2500 you can own the first edition book of something that pretty much started the entire computer field, boolean logic:

BOOLE, George (1815-1864). An Investigation of the Laws of Thought, on Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities. London: Macmillan and Co., 1854.

http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?from=searchresults&intObjectID=5084071 [christies.com]

well, maybe not $2500 after i just hyped the dang thing

christie's should be paying me a dang commission!

Re:

[houstonbofh (602064)]

If that is still too high, I have 2 DEC RA50 disk packs I can sell you. Talk about scientific history!

keep 'em!

[circletimessquare (444983)]

money in the bank appreciating value better than a CD... if not recording as much data as the other kind of CD ;-)

Re:

[TimeZone (658837)]

Damn you, that was the one that stood out to me too, as being really cool and within budgetary reach.
TZ

Re:

[circletimessquare (444983)]

Then you're really going to hate me now: you can buy your very own ENIGMA machine for $20K!!!

I won't link to the listing so as to damper the hype :-)

Re:

[Ramsés Morales (13327)]

Its amazing how some "useless" things can create such an urge to spend all your money to get them.

phones

[syrinx (106469)]

Recently found an old newspaper ad, circa mid-1890s, for my great-grandfather's grocery store. Despite living in semi-rural Indiana, they apparently had one of the newfangled phones, as the ad listed their phone number. It was "12".

Re:phones

[sammy baby (14909)]

I don't suppose there's any chance you could scan and post that somewhere, could you? Because that is cool.

Re:phones

[syrinx (106469)]

Unfortunately I don't have it with me -- it's back with a lot of other family records and things in my parents' basement, and, contrary to popular belief, I don't live there. ;)

I could probably get a picture or scan of it eventually, but this Slashdot discussion will be long since archived.

Also, since posting that earlier today I'm thinking I might have misremembered the number. It was definitely two digits, but it might have been slightly higher, something like "52". Either way, I found it pretty interesting.

Re:

[ikkonoishi (674762)]

Sounds like a local switchboard number. Likely it wouldn't work for anywhere farther than a few miles away. Its like someone omitting the area code when they give out a number in a local ad.

Re:

[Sponge Bath (413667)]

It was "12".

Almost as cool as /. UID 12.
I think that belongs to Tycho Brahe... første indlæg!

Not that I'm against it

[east coast (590680)]

I certainly don't mind the story and I don't wink at the significance of the items but...

Science history just seems a bit overbearing to me. Not that I don't agree that we need to know our past to understand our future or any of the other little axioms about history.

I think it extends from a funk that I felt about matter in my college years. I had an astronomy class that I really was hoping was going to be a bit better than what I expected from an intro course. There is such a ton of knowledge to cover wi

Re:

[east coast (590680)]

Really? So you know the history of all the technology and science that you use? Not to say I'm completely ignorant as I've been around the track a few times at this point but when it comes down to it there is no difference in my life as far as how the stuff works when it comes down it's history. For example, it means much much less to me to know who invented USB as to know how USB works. The same with astronomy, it's much more useful for me to know what exists compared to who discovered it.

It's great to kn

No, I'm not wearing anything Alumini?um

[choas (102419)]

Just a weird thought, what's to stop a kook from buying this, burning it and to call any pictures/copies a fake ?

scratch that, even if he/she doesn't call it a fake but just burns it out of spite, can anybody keep this from happening ?

Isn't there a 'Library of humanity' (sponsored by us all) to which pieces like this should go ?

Re:

[damienl451 (841528)]

From a purely utilitarian standpoint, all these books can be burned. There are many copies (which are known to be genuine) and, besides the cool-factor of owning a piece of history, these books are rather useless. The text they contain, which is available elsewhere, may be valuable in that it preservers ideas that impacted the world tremendously, but that's about it.

Why exactly would we want to fund (read 'have to pay taxes for') a "Library of humanity". How many people are interested in traveling hundred

It was Ben Franklin!

[scipiodog (1265802)]

It would not be until 1897, after people had already made fortunes exploiting electricity, that the English scientist J. J. Thomson discovered what it actually was ...'"

No way! Everyone knows Benjamin Franklin discovered electricity flying his kite, with a key attached...

Why Not?

[eldavojohn (898314)]

Let's all hope and pray . . . that some rich, right wing nutjob doesn't buy the collective works of Darwin and have a bonfire at his church.

Why not? Seemed to work out alright for The Beatles.

Re:

[db32 (862117)]

The saddest part of this is the pathetic claims of Darwin renouncing his theory on his death bed crap. The end of his book on the subject of evolution concludes that all of what he wrote shows the incredible power and diversity of God's creation.

Re:

[porcupine8 (816071)]

I believe definition #2 will clear up your confusion:

totem (t'tm) pronunciation
n.

1.
a. An animal, plant, or natural object serving among certain tribal or traditional peoples as the emblem of a clan or family and sometimes revered as its founder, ancestor, or guardian.
b. A representation of such an object.
c. A social group having a common affiliation to such an object.
2. A venerated emblem or symbol: "grew up with the totems and taboos typical of an Irish Catholic kid in Boston" (Connie Paige).